Sometimes their decision set is unfavorable. Other times things happen that are beyond their control. Yet more people just make bad decisions.
People are the product of their environments.
Statistically, Ben Carson's success is a rarity, but there were factors in his success that were not related to his upbringing, otherwise he would have failed as others in his position would have failed.
Should hard work, natural intelligence and giftings be punished in the grand scheme of things because others might not have that same inherent benefit? Should family wealth, connections, social status be punished because others lack?
Should Ben Carson be more deserved of his income because he came from worse background compared to his neurosurgeon colleagues?
I spent 15 years of my life studying my craft (medicine), while my contemporaries drank alcohol, smoked marijuana, traveled extensively, spent rather than saved, and otherwise wasted their gifts. Should they be rewarded and me punished?
And we can cut right to the meat of it: punishment versus reward, because this is exactly the direction that modern politics takes these studies and attitudes. It was part of Obama's class warfare tactics when pushing for tax increases on individuals making over $400k. I don't know how much you earn, but if you're in the 1% like me, you would feel the constant antipathy simply because you have a certain income (but a fraction of the wealth because of delayed gratification, student loans, opportunity costs, etc).
Rather than thinking of earning slightly less as "punishment," you should consider it as the price paid for civilization and the foundations upon which your very ability to earn a high wage are built.
What is your frame of reference for "slightly less"? Physician salaries are already substantially less than what they were 20-30 years ago in real dollars.
"I think computer scientists are paid too much, so they should be paid less. I think they're worth only 75% of what they get paid currently."
"I think kindergarten teachers are paid too much, so they should be paid less. I think they're worth only 75% of what they get paid currently."
"I think basketball players are paid too much, so they should be paid less. I think they're worth only 75% of what they get paid currently."
The point most people are bringing up in this thread is that the children of the upperclass do that all the time and still inherit enough wealth and property to earn more than you.
The point is that the top 1% defined by the article is based on wages, not wealth. Why isn't the discussion focused on taking wealth away from the super wealthy and redistributing it?
For instance, if you have a net worth of $50 million, then 10% has to be liquidated and given to the government. Would this be fair?
And yes, I think 10% off of $50 million is plenty fair. Yes, you earned that money, and I bet you would use it productively instead of blowing it on a yacht. But there are homeless people freezing to death on the streets of New York today. Don't you think you can spare a little?
Fundamentally, like I said, I agree that the top 1% by wealth is different than the top 1% by income. Perhaps we should tax income using tax brackets that scale with net worth.